Friday, January 31, 2014

It’s been stated and repeated countless times: the American
labor movement needs its own political party.(For anyone who still believes the Democrat Party is the party
of the American labor movement, I can only say, I’m sorry, but you haven’t been
paying attention).

Those of us who are involved in US politics look with envy
toward the Canadian labour movement, which has the New Democratic Party (NDP)
as its steadfast ally.At the same
time, US unions are forced to deal with two parties; one that wants to end our
existence, and the other that ignores us.

Meanwhile, our Canadian sisters and brothers find the NPD
stands unflinchingly with unions on virtually every important workplace issue.Certainly, there remain a few areas of
disagreement – we are talking about politics after all.Still, Canadian unions remain confident
that the Party-that-Jack-built (that’s Jack Layton for you Americans who don’t
know) will stand strongly with them in the tough fights.

On the other hand – and with notable exceptions that I’ll
get to later – far too many Democrats seem to exist on a motto of “I may not
have done much for you in the past, but I’m still better than the
alternative.”They come to labor
unions seeking endorsements, volunteer workers, and financial support.Then, after winning, they forget about
the people who supported them.When the next election rolls around, those same lawmakers come back to
the unions looking for support again.If the unions balk, the Dems simply recite the previously cited
motto.Except that now, the
“alternative” is even more anti-labor than the last one.Faced with such a threat, the unions
support the Democrat, who then regains his/her selective amnesia after
winning.And the circle continues.

So, the cry goes out from American union leaders, “Let’s get
our own party like the Canadians’ NDP.”

The problem with that idea is that by running a Labor Party
candidate against a Democrat, the unions’ forces and resources will be
divided.This could ensure a win
by the opposition.And when the
opposition is a Right-to-Work union-hating corporate wonk, dividing our
resources to teach some weak-kneed Dem a lesson is not a very good idea.

There are other problems with creating a Labor Party.Old-time hard-line Dems will oppose the
concept.Many local union members
as well as national union leaders will view the notion as too uncertain.It could risk turning fair-weather
friends into devoted enemies.Finally, there is the issue of money – which we don’t have much of.

Nevertheless, I still believe creating an American Labor
Party is a worthy goal.But
realistically, I don’t envision it happening any time in the foreseeable
future.

I have an alternate idea.It’s something that’s both realistic and very doable

Simply put, there needs to be a Progressive Caucus within
the Democratic Party.(I’d call it
a Labor Caucus, but that’s too limiting, and our current numbers are too low.)

Go back to those notable exceptions I mentioned
earlier.I’m referring to the
Democrats who stand strongly with us on nearly every issue.On a national level, these would
include people such as George Miller, Elijah Cummings, Gwen Moore, Sherrod
Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Mazie Hirona; to name only a few.Admittance to the Progressive Caucus by
a new and unproven legislator could be done via a given set of litmus tests on
worker/labor and social issues.Veteran lawmakers would have to earn their way into the Caucus through
their proven track records.It’s sort
of like pay-for-performance, but without the favoritism.

Sound far-fetched?This really isn’t a great deal different than the concept that led to
the creation of the Democratic Leadership Caucus (DLC) in the early 90’s.That group of corporate-friendly Dems
was led by Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and boasted such members as Virginia
Governor Doug Wilder and Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas. When they and their centrist colleagues
convened in 1991, Democratic Party leaders who weren’t pro-business enough to
be allowed in the DLC (Sens. Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone among others)
weren’t invited.They were all
still colleagues within the same party, but there was a clear distinction
between their core principles.

In creating a Progressive Caucus, we’d still have the
Democratic Party we’ve all come to know and gripe about. We’d still be able to tabulate voting
records prior to elections. But
when a Progressive Caucus candidate would run against a “I vote your interests
once in every blue moon” Democrat, our members and leaders – along the media
and the voting populace will know which Dems have sold their souls to their
corporate donors and which ones have earned the Progressive Caucus “Seal of
Approval.”

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

A member of my union recently shared a wonderful quote with me. St. Francis of Assisi once said, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words."

At the time he told me this, my fellow union member was referring to some high-ranking government officials who seem to have adopted a creed, which says that flowery words can make up for a lack of action. As our meetings progressed, the compelling quotation proved to be right on point.

After that day's meetings, the words of St. Francis stuck with me. I was particularly moved by the notion of letting one's actions declare his or her beliefs. The thought stayed with me through Martin Luther King Day.

Surely, there can be no better example of a person whom, though immeasurably profound in his speech, was defined by his actions. And I can think of no better way to celebrate Dr. King's legacy than following the sage advice of St. Francis.

As we do each year, we take the day to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. Yet, we need to extend ourselves further, by sharing his life's lessons with all those whom we meet. If necessary (but only if necessary), we should use words when we do so.